Middle East Speech: Obama and the Awkward Number 1967

Barack Obama has formulated new stipulations for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has also re-determined the U.S. relationship with the Arab states in a speech. At the end of it, Obama crucially said that a Palestinian state should be based on “the 1967 lines.” Of course, this is on the condition that areas between Israel and the future state of Palestine can be swapped by mutual agreement — it is better to be safe than sorry.

Whether or not this sentence should actually be said was puzzled over for days, and the outcome remained unclear until the end. The fact that Obama began his much-anticipated speech half an hour late was allegedly evidence of internal dispute. Opinions on this subject clashed for weeks in the White House and the State Department. Obama’s national security adviser and a close Middle East adviser were against naming the year of 1967. Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, was for it because, in principle, a Palestinian state in the 1967 lines means a state which contains the whole of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Thus, the holy city would become a divided capital.

At first glance, this sentence may seem to be just aimed at experts. The basis of a peace treaty has been negotiated for decades. Since these negotiations, people have been talking about a Palestinian state within the 1967 lines — that is to say, within the region before the Six-Day War, when Israel, who had been attacked, victoriously expanded its territory.

Almost every U.S. president has made the 1967 lines the initial position of peace negotiations. But nobody has explicitly uttered the year “1967”; instead they have openly repeated that the border dispute is ultimately a concern for both conflicting parties. The Israelis were happy with this reserved stance, but it angered the Palestinians. But now that Obama has publicly uttered this number as a condition, there is no going back, at least not during his presidency — just like back when U.S. President Jimmy Carter spoke of a Palestinian “homeland” for the first time, and in 2002, when George W. Bush demanded a two-state solution in the White House Rose Garden for the first time. Of course, Obama will not achieve a breakthrough with this sentence; it may not even cause new momentum in the Middle East negotiations. But the parameters of a possible peace plan are becoming clearer and, above all, more official.

However, Obama predominantly devoted his foreign policy speech to the revolutions in the Middle East. On the eve of Obama’s Middle East speech, a high-ranking official was already circulating the rumor that it comes at a time of great opportunity for United States policy in the region. According to the rumors, national uprisings in the name of freedom and democracy, fallen dictators, failing despots and the death of Osama bin Laden are the long-awaited opportunities to finally see the Middle East in a new light and to reconcile the United States with the Arab states.

But he failed to say that it is also a time of great uncertainty: Libya is immersed in civil war; President Saleh of Yemen is clinging to power; Saudi Arabia is helping the ruler of Bahrain suppress the uprising; and Syria is using tanks against protesters. It is also still not clear which way the Tunisians and the Egyptians will vote. It is also a moment of U.S. strategic ambiguity. In the past few months, the Obama administration has contradicted itself on a number of occasions. First of all, it supported Egypt’s failed dictator, Hosni Mubarak. Then, very later on, it abandoned him. At first Obama hesitated with the bombing of Gadhafi’s troops in Libya. Then he called for a particularly broad U.N. mandate for military action, only to finally give supreme command to the British and the French.

Similarly, there was also the indecisive to-ing and fro-ing toward the brutal violence of the Syrian government. They have only just brought themselves to enforce sanctions against its dictator, Bashar al-Assad, and his closest government officials. The Arab protesters are wondering more and more often which side the United States is actually on. Obama has now endeavored to clarify this. He admitted that the United States had stuck up for supposed friends for too long. Now, he asserted that the United States’ “top priority” is not to support governments, but to support free nations, political and economic reforms, and to promote democracy, human rights and commitment to equal rights between men and women.

In the past few weeks the president has felt the growing concern with his policies and the lack of principles. However, in the midst of the escalated events, it is not easy to find or to draw a clear line. Idealism is constantly grappling with the harsh reality that the situation and the importance of the different states are in fact different. Syria is simply more important than Libya, because if it collapses, it could cause an ethnic war.

Obama has promised the rebellious nations money and support, but only economic progress could ensure lasting democracy and freedom. Above all, he said that the many young people in the Arab states needed jobs and future prospects.

It was not until the end of his speech that Obama spent time on the conflict of conflicts — the bloody dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians, which goads terrorists and has led the region to war on several occasions. Obama denied that the revolution overshadowed the prospects for peace and that it would be better — as some Israelis believe — to hold back for the time being. He is right, but the United States and Israel might have already missed the opportunity for a peace breakthrough. It is possible that the Arab Spring will banish both parties involved to the spectators’ bench, because before you know it, the Palestinians could do something beyond Israel and the United States’ control, which is of high risk to the both of them.

In September, the Palestinians are planning to declare their own state, with or without Israel’s support. They are doing this just before the General Assembly of the United Nations takes place in New York. In this global meeting — or so the justified hope — at least 100 member nations will recognize Palestine in accordance with international law. Thus, in the eyes of almost the entire world, Israel will finally be seen as an occupying power.

Obama wants to prevent this. In a week in which Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is visiting Washington and the Palestine question is once again the order of the day, Obama has taken the bull by the horns and has stated the obvious for the first time: There must be a two-state solution, but within the 1967 lines.

The coming months will show whether this move has come at the right time.